Apparently, and I say this with a grain of salt, hearsay is now going to be allowed in a criminal case. Now this is just plain wrong, I do not care if this guy is guilty or not, you just cannot take hearsay evidence to trial, because it is just too rife for abuse. One thing is that the person that is testifying to the hearsay is emotionally involved in the case, in other words they have a motive to lie.

Hearsay could be termed as a qualified lie, because it cannot be proved to a degree of certainty.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event or situation, an example would be,

Ted, told me that his sister was caught in a compromising situation, now there is no proof that this is true but the fact is that you cannot prove it, and that is a problem because you could say that this is alleged behavior, and that is a real problem.

If this is allowed, it will go to the supreme court and it will be over turned, the reason why is that you cannot convict a man of murder with no body, with no real evidence, and with only hearsay as evidence that something happened.

Now dont get me wrong here, this guy is an alleged slime, but we cannot allow this type of testimony to be proffered by the prosecution, simply because they either were so incompetent, as to not have worked the case correctly but are convinced that he in fact did do the offense he is charged with.

With all the recent amber alerts, over the last few months including the controversial Caylee, anthony case, where the state of florida charged and maintains that the mother was allegedly guilty of a crime, it appears they have allegedly no proof at all except for some vague circumstantial evidence, and the fact that the mother was an alleged drug addict and probably allegedly stupid to boot, yet, they had no real smoking gun so to speak.

Problems with the case continue to mount with the disappearance, of more children in florida suggestive that there in fact may be another suspect at large, and very active in abducting children.

If this is true then there is a real problem with the florida prosecution of the mother.

Will the state pay a price for alleged over zealous prosecution? We may not know for some time, but it appears that there are many problems with this case and it is particularly alarming that the state continues to pursue an alleged death sentence for the mother in order to force an alleged plea.

This type of behavior is not good for the criminal justice system as a whole and must be discouraged at all costs.

What is going on with this and is it time to put a stop to the obvious waste of tax payer money?

In a time where every dime and dollar counts, and many cities are having trouble just making the payroll, why are we seeing these cases that can not meet the burden of proof, in each of the above mentioned cases, the people lost and I mean they lost not only the case but also a great deal of the tax payer money.

Is this a wise course of action?

Do the people not have a duty to realistically apply the law when attempting to prosecute a case?

The answer is yes they do, yet here recently we have seen some really questionable charges and the jury has returned the verdict that just about every single information suggested would be the case.

The question now becomes, should the DA be responsible for the financial losses of prosecuting a case that cannot be won?

That might sound crazy, but in reality that is what is occurring in some cases, not all but some, these cases are brought about to create a certain amount of political action in preparation for running in an election.

This is not right and cannot be tolerated, over the last few months there have been some really questionable situations and perhaps it is time that the real people of these states take a look at who is charging these cases and for what reason.

Now it is time to file charges against the people of that town in Kentucky because what they did was wrong.
Charges should be filed, civil charges need to be filed the damages should be in the millions, why because they knew what they did was wrong yet they did it anyway they did it allegedly for publicity.

They ruined a mans life because of publicity, no one is saying that what happened was not wrong, ok, you know that too right, good, because what he did was wrong but it was not reckless homicide, and the DA knew this going into the trial and yet did nothing to stop it.